Pakistan's Airborne Early Warning and Control Aircrafts

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I am curious as to why Pakistan chose the SAAB 2000 over the Embraer 145. I know the PAF mentioned that they were not happy with the Embraer 145 in hot and high conditions. However, Brazil and Mexico have these types of weather condition and bought the ERIEYE on the Embraer 145 platform. Also India has (is?) purchased the Embraer 145 jet for its home grown AWACS. Also the SAAB 2000 does not have inflight refueling that can limit its loiter capability.

Have a happy new year!

Sweden has better sofware engineers and radar , Brazil produces soccer players thats why

 

[PakSher]

In case of a future India-Pak war, Indian fighter squadorns will be destroyed on the ground in preemptive strikes by the PAF, so we may not even heavily depend on the AEW Saab System.

 

[amarnath]

In case of a future India-Pak war, Indian fighter squadorns will be destroyed on the ground in preemptive strikes by the PAF, so we may not even heavily depend on the AEW Saab System.

hahahahaha...... Oh yeah yeah......

 

[Quwa]

I am curious as to why Pakistan chose the SAAB 2000 over the Embraer 145. I know the PAF mentioned that they were not happy with the Embraer 145 in hot and high conditions. However, Brazil and Mexico have these types of weather condition and bought the ERIEYE on the Embraer 145 platform. Also India has (is?) purchased the Embraer 145 jet for its home grown AWACS. Also the SAAB 2000 does not have inflight refueling that can limit its loiter capability.

Have a happy new year!

Apparently the ERJ-145 option was more expensive.

However, the ZDK03 (KJ-200) project with the Chinese will allow Pakistan to develop its own AEW&C system. At the very least, this would mean integrating the AEW&C radar and systems on an aircraft of its choice. Given Embraer's recent agreements with the Chinese, it is possible that we will see ERJ-145 or another Embraer aircraft serve as an AEW&C platform for PAF in the future.

 

[MastanKhan]

Are you serious? If I had an asset worth a quarter of a billion $'s up in the skies I'd want to know about every little thing heading my way.
RWR is good when the Erieye is illuminated by a hostile, but if that were to ever happen then the Erieye is already in great peril.
Let's face it, and please don't try to sugar coat it with ESM/RWR and SIGINT the lack of 360° coverage is a weakness of the Erieye system – a weakness that could prove fatal for the Erieye in the India / Pakistan scenario.

Hi,

For the threat that we face---the saab fits very well into our geography---the enemy--ie india---can only manage to come through certain directions---our angles of threat are not 360 degs---you have benn discussing about it for awhile now---.

Why don't you draw up a map of indo pak conflict and show the directions of attack as they would be concieved by the Indian forces and then we will see if the saab is workable or not---.

Other than that it is just an argument of " I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CROW IS BLACK---IT IS WHITE ".

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Hi,

For the threat that we face---the saab fits very well into our geography---the enemy--ie india---can only manage to come through certain directions---our angles of threat are not 360 degs---you have benn discussing about it for awhile now---.

Why don't you draw up a map of indo pak conflict and show the directions of attack as they would be concieved by the Indian forces and then we will see if the saab is workable or not---.

Other than that it is just an argument of " I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CROW IS BLACK---IT IS WHITE ".

Sir G this is by far the best post of the new year!
infact i would say it is directed towards all those people who brag about erieye front and behind blind spots which they tend to give big big advantage to the enemy on the east.

 

[TangoViking]

The radar scan-limitations is not bothering anyone other than amateur forum posters. The nearest rotodome competitors can't scan 360d radar all at the same time either. To focus energy they have to stop the dome and create larger blind spots since it's no longer refreshing the full 360.

Embraer got a pdf that also points out what I mentioned b4, maybe a repost and if so I am sorry.

http://www.embraerdefensesystems.co...nho=download/pdf/01-0113296_CapaAEW_pg001.pdf

This is for previous gen Erieye used in Brazil but of course fundamentally the same praxis.





Ps. A very good reason for selecting the Saab 2000 is that you get all the major systems from one supplier and nation.

Aircraft:Saabs own design, own property, ready made.
Radar: Saab
ESM/SPS: Saab
Operator consoles: Saab
Flight test/training: Saab

etc.

No other western AEW company can deliver as much from under one roof.

 

[dbc]

Hi,

For the threat that we face---the saab fits very well into our geography---the enemy--ie india---can only manage to come through certain directions---our angles of threat are not 360 degs---you have benn discussing about it for awhile now---.

Are you sure about that? Does India not possess an aircraft carrier and awaiting more? I recall reading about Indian bases in Central Asia, considering this - are you certain your Erieye is secure from the north and south? You also expect to maintain territorial integrity during an all out war, are you certain one or more of your own bases will not fall into enemy hands?

I’ve said this before ground detection range of your Erieye is 100 km in ideal conditions; this fact alone puts the Erieye at risk, since it will have to get a lot closer to the battlefield and fly constrained by its blind spots aft and rear. Also the area of engagement does not remain static, when supersonic jets and hypersonic missiles are in play 100 km represents approximately 6 minutes of flying time at Mach 2.

If you still think 360° coverage is over rated then consider this, the Hawkeye E-2D program continues to mount the linear electronically scanned array APY-9 radar on a rotating dome adding several million in development and maintenance cost – why? Simple, because someone in US Navy thinks 360° coverage is worth the extra cost and maintenance hassle.

Finally, I don’t think anyone here gets what I’ve been trying to convey for a while now I am in no way suggesting the Erieye is a bad choice, all things considered it is a very sensible choice for the PAF. But I do believe PAF needs more than just 4 AWACs/AEW&Cs that have been ordered so far because in an all out war with a numerically superior adversary you will likely lose one or more systems.

 

[Patriot]

Well, the advertised range of Saab AWACS is 350 KM so ideally it should be 300 at least..100KM are you serious..even F16 Block52 Radar has 70KM+ Range..Besides, we do have 100% radar coverage all over Pakistan and TPS-77 radar can actually look inside India as well (though range is very limited) so the blind spots are not really blind.The main air space network will have data from all nodes.So if something is heading towards AWACS ..first of all AWACS should be able to detect it secondly the ground radars will detect, third the escorts of AWACS will detect it.We have bases all over Pakistan so intercept should not take long specially now that we have refueling..there will be plenty of caps at any time.Keep in mind that PAF Main HQ has data from all nodes..ground radar network, mobile radars, AWACS...they're all connected to PAF fiber network.PAF can place more orders later, if needed and the central Asia base part was bullshit and was debunked by that country and even if someone provide base to Indians they will have a nice cruise or ballistic missile coming their way in a war.

 

[dbc]

Well, the advertised range of Saab AWACS is 350 KM so ideally it should be 300 at least..100KM are you serious..

Look at the graphic bottom right of page.

Aircrafts = 380 - 400 km
Ships = 280 - 300 km
Cruise missiles = 180 km
Ground Targets <= 100 km

SAAB 2000

 

[TaimiKhan]

Look at the graphic bottom right of page.

Aircrafts = 380 - 400 km
Ships = 280 - 300 km
Cruise missiles = 180 km
Ground Targets <= 100 km

SAAB 2000

Where in the graph it says that 100KM is the range for ground based targets ???? The gray area describes the Ground Based Radar coverage area, not the ground based targets detection capability.

This is what the official website of Saab says about its system:

" The ERIEYE AEW&C is the world&#8217;s only operational airborne Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar in service today. The Saab 2000 ERIEYE AEW&C utilises the latest generation ERIEYE radar, now capable of detecting small air targets, hovering helicopters, cruise missiles and small sea targets such as inflatable rubber boats, for a more complete surveillance picture. "

Here it doesn't mentions ground based targets, meaning it has not that objective or mission defined.

I believe J-Stars are the platform for ground based targets detections, AEW&C are primarily for aerial surveillance.

 

[hataf]

Look at the graphic bottom right of page.

Aircrafts = 380 - 400 km
Ships = 280 - 300 km
Cruise missiles = 180 km
Ground Targets <= 100 km

SAAB 2000

for what type of ground target
if you are reckoning SAM site here then i think SAM sites uses radars to guide missiles and these radio signals can be detected way beyond 100KM
i think the ground target mentioned hare are tanks, trucks, vehicles and other ground targets, those which don't Emmit radio signals
for example if there is a SAM site with range of 70KM i think its radar signals can be detected 200 to 250km away.

 

[dbc]

Where in the graph it says that 100KM is the range for ground based targets ????

This is what the official website of Saab says about its system:

" The ERIEYE AEW&C is the world&#8217;s only operational airborne Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar in service today. The Saab 2000 ERIEYE AEW&C utilises the latest generation ERIEYE radar, now capable of detecting small air targets, hovering helicopters, cruise missiles and small sea targets such as inflatable rubber boats, for a more complete surveillance picture. "

Here it doesn't mentions ground based targets, meaning it has not that objective or mission defined.

I believe J-Stars are the platform for ground based targets detections, AEW&C are primarily for aerial surveillance.

Ground detection is represented by the color grey in the graphic, at zero on vertical y-axis the detection range x is < 100 km. My yardstick for the Erieye is the US Navy Hawkeye 2D, the APY-9 is capable of detecting ground targets at 200 miles (321.8 km), the Eireye can detect small targets like inflatable rubber boats and display SAR images of the target at less than 100 km.
In any case if airborne command and control is not the role intended for the Erieye and PAF simply wishes to use the system as an airborne radar to detect air targets then you&#8217;re right - ground detection range becomes irrelevant along with the rest of my argument .

 

[dbc]

for what type of ground target
if you are reckoning SAM site here then i think SAM sites uses radars to guide missiles and these radio signals can be detected way beyond 100KM
i think the ground target mentioned hare are tanks, trucks, vehicles and other ground targets, those which don't Emmit radio signals
for example if there is a SAM site with range of 70KM i think its radar signals can be detected 200 to 250km away.

You are correct but like our Swedish friend you have the radar confused with the RWR.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Ground detection is represented by the color grey in the graphic, at zero on vertical y-axis the detection range x is < 100 km. My yardstick for the Erieye is the US Navy Hawkeye 2D, the APY-9 is capable of detecting ground targets at 200 miles (321.8 km), the Eireye can detect small targets like inflatable rubber boats and display SAR images of the target at less than 100 km.
In any case if airborne command and control is not the role intended for the Erieye and PAF simply wishes to use the system as an airborne radar to detect air targets then you’re right - ground detection range becomes irrelevant along with the rest of my argument .

I believe the gray color is not representing ground target identification mark, rather it is showing the range of a ground based radar coverage compared to the Erieye range in red.

So the red and gray are basically the comparison of the Erieye detection range Vs ground based radar coverage.

Kindly re-check my finding.